RosieTR
3-24-14, 11:00am
My MIL was peeved that her homeowner's insurance went up by about $200 this year. She blames it on the folks living in riskier areas (wildfire/flood risk) driving up her homeowners. We have not received our bill for ours this year yet, though I suppose it's more noticeable when it's not bundled in with the PITI most mortgage servicers do. Since we had to make 2 claims in 5 years on our (thankfully no longer owned) house in Phoenix, I will not be surprised if our rates go up. I don't know if insurance does retroactive increases or not, based on claims in the past. Since there were a lot of claims in CO in the last two years, I don't know how much that will affect us either, or if that's really what caused MIL's increase. For folks everywhere who live in potential floodplains, the story is rather grim (http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/AP-IMPACT-Flood-insurance-increases-still-a-peril-5343148.php). It appears that changes to the flood insurance program will eventually cause flood insurance to be beyond the average homeowner's reach. I don't know as there's any good answers, either. It would totally suck to live somewhere and know that in a few years you won't be able to afford it. The floodplain maps have changed and are changing due to climate change and other factors (better mapping, actual floods that demonstrate precisely where the floodplain is, weather events that change the floodplain, etc) so it's also possible that people bought homes somewhere that weren't then in the floodplain, or were in the floodplain but not assessed that way then. OTOH, keeping insurance rates artificially low via federal subsidies just encourages people to continue to live there, or increasingly live in/near flood-prone areas. After all, living near water often increases property value until the next flood or hurricane. But having your home involved in a flood can be anything from a hassle to catastrophically life-changing (or life-ending in the worst case scenario). But, most houses face some type of potential natural disaster, so is it fair to single out some types of disasters vs others, or prevent all but the very rich from living in certain areas? Maybe that has to do with actuarial tables, however: the chances of Joplin MO being taken out by another tornado may be far less than the chances of the Jersey shore being taken out again by a near-hurricane. I have no idea.